05-17-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
MAYI7" 2O22
INDEX
Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale,LLC/San Souci 2.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.226.12-1-43,226.12-1-44
Site Plan No.71-2021 Hoffman Development Corp. 3.
Tax Map No.296.17-1-42;296.13-1-17.2
Site Plan No. 66-2021 CVE North America,Inc. S.
Freshwater Wetlands 3-2021 Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4.1;303.15-1-25.2;303.11-1-5
Special Use Permit 4-2021
PZ 0720-2021
Site Plan No.2S-2022 Beth Portuese 16.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 316.5-1-3 and 316.9-1-27.2 (access drive)
Site Plan No.26-2022 Eric Carlson 1S.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4
Site Plan No.25-2022 3 Antigua Road,LLC 22.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.17-1-2 and 239.17-1-1
Site Plan No.29-2022 Reds LG,LLC 23.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.17-1-15
Site Plan No. 6S-2021 Tidal Wave Auto Spa 2S.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17TK,2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN
DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY
JOHN MOLLOY
WARREN LONGACKER
BRAD MAGOWAN
JACKSON LA SARSO
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for
Tuesday, May 17th,2022. This is our first meeting for the month of May and our 10`h meeting thus far for
2022. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency,those are
the emergency exits. If you have an electronic device,a cell phone or other device,if you would either turn
it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so as not to interrupt our proceedings. We also ask
that the audience remain silent aside from when we have public hearings. If you wish to have a
conversation among yourselves,that's fine. We would just ask that you go out into the outer room to do
that. With that we will proceed. Our first order of business this evening is approval of minutes from the
March 15 and March 22 and March 29 Planning Board meetings. I believe we have a draft resolution to
that effect.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 15th,2022
March 22 d 2022
March 29th,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
MARCH 15TK,2022,MARCH 22nd 2022 AND MARCH 29th,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who
moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb:
Duly adopted this 171h day of May,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Molloy
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we have a housekeeping duty. Our scheduled meeting for
next month on the 2Sth of June is unavailable. I think that there's a.
MRS. MOORE-Primary.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,there's a primary. So we have the possibility of choosing one of two alternate meeting
dates for the third meeting that we will need in the month of June.
MRS. MOORE=The second meeting.
MR. TRAVER-We had a third meeting but it's not scheduled I guess. Well,whatever.
MRS. MOORE-A meeting.
MR. TRAVER-So rather than meet on the 2Sth, we can choose either Thursday the 23rd or Thursday the
301h We just need to vote and approve, pass a resolution moving the Planning Board meeting from the
2Sth to one of those dates. I did advise, when I saw these options coming out,that I am not available on
the 301h. I'm going to be out of town on June 30. However, David would be glad to run the meeting on
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
the 30`h if you so choose,but how do people feel about their availabilities? Is the 23rd going to work for
folks? Okay. All right. Then I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect.
RESOLUTION CHANGING JUNE 2022 MEETING DATE
MOTION TO CHANGE SECOND TUNE PLANNING BOARD MEETING FROM TUNE 28,2022 TO
TUNE 23,2022, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we have an Administrative Item, a tabling request for Site Plan 33-2021 and
Special Use Permit 2-2021 for San Souci. They're asking to be tabled until June 21.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
TABLE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN 33-2021&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE,
LLC/SAN SOUCI TO JUNE 21,2022
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOO RE-So we're going to actually request tabling out to the first meeting in July. The applicant
wasn't able to meet the deadline for June due to an illness. They've ask to further table.
MR. TRAVER-The first meeting in July?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and those are 2021 applications.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. I have July 19 as the first meeting.
MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. This has been going on so long, do you just want to refresh my
memory. I haven't read that file in a bit. What has been a hold up on this?
MRS. MOORE-So it's in reference to outdoor seating and indoor seating.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. That's what I thought it was. All right.
MRS. MOORE-If there is any revised information,which I anticipate,should be due by June 15`h
MR. DIXON-Okay. And going forward, if this goes beyond July 19`h, well I guess we'll just evaluate our
options at that point.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. MOORE-That's correct.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 33-2021&SUP 2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE,LLC/SAN SOUCI
Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area to include existing four 6 person picnic tables and one
table for 4 persons on the restaurant parcel and the five top tables for 4 persons each on the adjoining
parcel. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040&179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance,food service in a WR zone
shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by
Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan.
Tabled until the July 19,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 15,2022.
Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we move to the regular agenda. The first item is a
continuation of the Hoffman Development Corporation application.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
CVESITE PLAN NO. 71-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): 919 STATE ROUTE 9/925 STATE
ROUTE 9 (ACCESS). ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 919 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 5,750 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS DRIVES
AND QUEUING LANES, AND 18 SELF-SERVE VACUUM AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS
INCLUDED A SIDEWALK TO BE COORDINATED WITH OTHERS ALONG THE PROPERTY
LINE ON WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR ACCESS ONTO ROUTE 9
THROUGH EXISTING TRAFFIC LIGHT, THROUGH ADJOINING PARCEL AND ACCESS ON
WEEKS ROAD. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING,
LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1990, SP 53-2011, SP 57-1995,
AV 42-1995, AV 74-1995, 99729-8147 ADDITION, DISC 5-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO.296.17-1-42,296.13-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-040.
MR.TRAVER-Laura,my recollection is that we heard this application last time,we took public comment,
closed the public hearing,we did SEQR and we tabled the application to this evening so that Counsel and
Staff could develop a resolution for us to act upon if we so choose?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. That's correct. There's a draft resolution that was in your packets.
MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft resolution which is the only action that we need to take this evening.
So I guess we're ready to hear that.
MR. DIXON-So this resolution is to approve or disapprove,then.
MR. TRAVER-Actually this resolution we had some clarification from Staff. This is a resolution to
approve, and should it fail then we'd need to create another resolution.
MR. DIXON-And the one thing that was in here, I recognize that the Town did a very nice job in putting
it all together. Regarding the adjacent interconnect, do we want to have some verbiage added to that?
Because that was of a bit of concern.
MR. TRAVER-What I'd like to do is act upon the resolution as prepared by Counsel and Staff.
MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me. What did you just say and what does that mean?
MR. TRAVER-Staff and Town Counsel worked on developing a resolution for us to consider this evening.
So the first order of business is to act on that.
MR. DEER We can't discuss it?
MR. MAGOWAN-Can we discuss it?
MR. TRAVER-Well,yes,we can certainly discuss it. Yes,okay. Let's discuss it.
MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I want to thank the Staff and Counsel for working on this, but there's a few
things I would like maybe to get added on or to get other people's thoughts. For one, it was brought to
MY attention on the agreement for the access right of way. Does anybody have an agreement that's written
up between the two parties of this,you know,of the access on Route 9.
MRS. MOORE-It looks like you're asking the applicant some information. That's not part of.
MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry. I'm looking to see, okay, I'm sorry, I'll re-phrase that. I'm wondering, do we
have an agreement between the two parties to access this,the use of the access road coming off Route 9
and the light? We just went through kind of a difficult situation with a driveway on a previous project
and suppose there was an easement, I feel that there should be more of an agreement between the two
parties to make sure that we will not have any problems in the future and go through what we just went
through.
MR. TRAVER-We did discuss this at length the last couple of times we heard the application. I know
there is a deeded easement.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's a deeded easement.
MR. TRAVE R-Correct. So if there was a dispute as to the valid nature of that easement,that would be a
civil matter and we would not be a party to that.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'm not going back there, Steve. All right. In this resolution I would like
added that there is an agreement between both parties signed for this right of way and this easement so
we don't have to go into a civil matter and prolong expenses on both sides,that the two parties sit down,
have an agreement,have it signed and submitted and added on to the resolution and on to the prints so we
don't go through what we're going through now.
MR. TRAVER-Well,again.
MR.MAGO WAN-I'm talking to the Board as well as you,and I'm not trying to be disrespectful here,Steve,
but you're grabbing control and I don't like that. How do the other Board members feel about what I'm
asking for?
MR. TRAVER-Well,first of all,it's not me,it's a matter of in the nature of a Planning Board,not just this
Planning Board, but Planning Boards in general, that we're not involved, we don't litigate civil matters
between parties.
MR. MAGOWAN-We're not litigating.
MR. TRAVER-Again,I don't see how we can require there be a civil resolution between two parties when
on the plans that were submitted, which is what our responsibility is, there's a designated right of way,
and that's not uncommon. That's in many adjoining properties.
MR. MAGOWAN-That right of way is owned by another property owner who installed it and has put it
in there. This is the same thing that we were just going through with the last thing,and I'm making sure
that we don't have that, and it's a simple little thing that the two parties sit down and come with an
applicable agreement that both sides are happy before a building permit is issued on this so there is no civil
matter.
MR. DEEB-This is a tough one, and I know what you're saying. I wonder if, IF this resolution, and you
have a right to vote no on the resolution.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR.DEEB-You don't have to vote for the resolution,but if we did what you're suggesting,and I'm not sure
we can do it,this could delay the project forever. Because if they go to litigation. If we,if this resolution
is passed and if they still go to litigation,that's not our concern. Okay. That's their concern,not ours,and
I think we all know what the result's going to end up being. So just that we all know that if you're not
happy with the resolution you can vote no.
MR. TRAVER-Vote it down. Exactly right.
MR. DEEB-If you are okay with it,you can vote yes,but I mean I really think it's a slippery slope. I'm not
quite sure this is the same situation as what you're talking about.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's close.
MR. DEEB-I know it's close,but it's not quite the same/
MR.MAGO WAN-All right And it's nothing against either party. I'm just trying to stop something before
it happens and maybe rightfully so I can't do that,but I needed to voice my opinion.
MR. TRAVER-I agree. I don't think any of us are hoping that there's, or would want any kind of issue.
It's just that our role,by definition, is finite in this and we can't prevent parties from disputing different
situations, even over and above the right of way. So there's a limit to our role in terms of this particular
project.
MR. MAGOWAN-With a simple request to ask that the two parties get down and come up with an
agreement. To me,that's not.
MR. TRAVER-We can ask that,and I think we have. I don't see how we can require it.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I am asking.
MR. DEEB-The problem is it really throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing and I don't think we
should be adding fuel to the fire. We just have to act on it,we have to act on it one way or the other.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. And I understand that, and I just don't want to go down that path. All right.
The other thing I would like to add is the Weeks Road,with Whispering Pines. It was also brought up in
the meeting about any of the residents in the back being able to go through Hoffman and go to the light
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
due to traffic issues. Can that be added on? Can we do that? Because it was brought up to an agreement
by the Hoffman party that they would allow access to through their property to get to the light.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if that's an agreement between Hoffman and that property owner, again, that's
between them. The information that I have,and what I'm presenting,what the Town is presenting to the
Board this evening is this is the resolution drafted by Counsel. So what I would like to do is, and I
understand there are a myriad of things we could add. I mean there was concern about noise and buffering
and all the rest. We spent a lot of time discussing this with the applicant, as you know, and in a very
thorough and valid way I think, and I'm not saying that all of the potential issues are resolved. As with
any project,there maybe concerns that might arise. Down the road,for example,there could be changes
in traffic patterns from other developments going on in the area that,you know, we can't speak to that.
We have to address what we have in front of us and appreciate the review that was given to us by the
Town Engineer for the traffic study which they submitted two traffic studies to the engineer. So from a
procedural standpoint,what I would like to do is act on the resolution recommended by Staff,Town Staff
and Town Counsel. Should that fail,then we have to go back to Square One with another resolution.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,there are seven of us.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. MAGOWAN-And to put out our opinions and our thoughts and everybody sees things differently,
and maybe,you know,the Town Counsel and our Staff did not think of everything that others thought of.
So I don't like to be shut down,but I do I guess have a chance to voice some of my opinions. I know we
have a problem with Weeks Road and Whispering Pines have been in for everything that's gone on on
Weeks Road. I just want to make sure that everything is covered and everybody is happy and there's an
agreement with all before we give approval. Because what I have found out,if it's not in the resolution and
it's approved then we don't have a leg to stand on to change anything, and that has happened on a couple
of past projects and it's really upset me because we try to work so hard and we try to do the right thing
and try to keep everybody happy,but also to see everything,you know.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did anyone else want to comment on the draft resolution?
MR.MOLLOY-So it's more a question for the Board. I want to know,because I certainly share these same
concerns,what I want to know,it sounds like we're limited in what we can do. So if we do require that
to be part of the resolution,what is the actual outcome? What is the functional outcome? What changes?
MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry? If we require what as part of the resolution?
MR. MOLLOY-Some of these clauses that were just mentioned.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if we were to put in the resolution that we require a civil agreement between the
parties,number one I think that might be thrown out because we don't have the authority to do that. So
that would be considered invalid. As far as the other thing,requiring Hoffman to grant access to drivers
that represent that they're coming from this apartment complex or something,I think we're kind of in the
same boat. We don't really have the authority to do that.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's in the minutes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean if they represented that in the minutes then that's up to them,and if they are
held to that by the residents of the apartment complex then presumably there could be some civil action
taken against them where they could say,you know,you said you would do this and now you're not, or
whatever, but again, that's beyond our purview. We can't adjudicate issues between parties of a civil
matter. We have to look at the application. We review the,we have the professional engineer that reviews
the documentation. We have Counsel in this case that felt it was worthwhile that they review all the
information in the records that we've reviewed thus far and create this resolution for us to potentially act
upon this evening. It doesn't mean we have to act upon it, but the procedure calls for us to hear the
resolution,vote on it. If it passes it passes. If it fails, then this resolution doesn't exist anymore and we
have to come up with another resolution.
MR. MOLLOY-So it sounds like it'll have no effect in court if we did or we didn't do it.
MR. TRAVER-Well,I don't think we can execute an action that we have no authority to execute.
MR. MOLLOY-Right.
MR.TRAVER-So that,I'm not sure that that's ever happened before. I mean we all go through orientation
and training and generally we know what our role is.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. DEEB-I really believe that what we're talking about here are vagaries, something you can't put your
finger on. There are some things you can put in a resolution. You need to plant more trees,you need to
have another parking sign.
MR. TRAVER-That is within our purview.
MR. DEEB-That's what we can do. That's our purview. You get into something like this,you get into
gray areas, and are they enforceable areas? The applicant already agreed to allow traffic to go through. It
was in the minutes,and you all knew my reaction. I wasn't happy with it,but it just,it's something. Now
if traffic is too heavy, people start going through there and it's going to disrupt the business, people are
going to go the other way or they'll go through Wal-Mart. All right. So I do believe this can resolve itself.
MR. MAGOWAN-But the thing is,and all I'm saying is because I've heard this before. Even though it's in
the minutes,if it's not in the resolution, then they can do whatever they want, and you say, well, gee, we
took you at your word,but you changed your word. Now I can understand if traffic becomes like the back
of Weeks Road,then we've got a problem. That's not what I'm asking for. But let's just take for example
B,the project will be capable of adequately handling the traffic generated by the proposed uses and existing
uses in the area as identified in the traffic study and reviewed by the Town Designated Engineer—5/31/2022
noting minimal impacts at the two intersections. Okay. That's in the resolution. Now how are we
going to enforce that? That,to me,is very vague. We're trusting,but I mean to me it's all in the wording,
but what I have found out,if it's not in the resolution,then the applicants can do whatever they want.
MR. MOLLOY-Even if it is in the resolution,it won't matter in court because that is not our purview. Do
I understand that correctly?
MR. TRAVER-Well that's correct. I mean what we can put in the resolution is what's within our power,
within the ability of the Planning Board to put in the resolution. And some of these things,you know,the
review by the Town Engineer is part of the process that's required. That's why that's there. That's there
to show the process,but as far as adding,you know,requiring a civil agreement between parties and so on,
that can't be in the resolution because we don't have the power to do that. We can advocate for it.
MR. MAGOWAN-We can tell you you can or cannot build,but we can't tell you to add anything else.
MRS. MOORE-So you could say a stormwater agreement was between the applicant and the Town. In
this case it sounds like you're asking the two parties to interact to form an agreement which in site plan
review we've already implemented in the sense that we require people to do an interconnect and that
interconnect information was available, and so that's what, and at the time the interconnect was
completed, there were also deeds drawn up. So it's already been implemented in the Planning Board
process.
MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand that, and I know there is a right of way, and they have all the rights
to use that, all right,but the other side of the road would like,you know,the other side of the parking lot
would just like to,probably has,well I knowhas some questions on the deed,at the time,who was thinking
on what was going to come in here, and there's a lot more traffic probably with the car wash then maybe a
shoe store or something.
MRS.MOO RE-That maybe your opinion,but think about it. We had a traffic study done. Our engineer
reviewed that traffic study.
MR. TRAVER-It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-That's why we have seven members on the Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-I just want to make sure everything's covered down the road on Weeks and that there
was an agreement between the two parties about the deeded right of way,but we'll wait for the vote. So
do what you want.
MR. TRAVER-Other questions about the resolution?
MR. DIXON-I think what Brad had spoken to is where I started off in the beginning,too, only because of
one other event that we had with an applicant,and it got dicey. So if there were measures in it,but Laura's
our expert. We look to her to guide us sometimes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Don't get me wrong. I like the project. I just want to make sure we have all our I's
dotted and our T's crossed.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. TRAVER-I don't think any of the parties that have participated in the review of this project or any
member of the Board is looking for any kind of issues. I mean we would all love to have this go smoothly
which is why we tried to do our due diligence in terms of getting the background information,the traffic
study and have it reviewed by professionals,have Counsel review any resolution that we did so that it was
compliant with what our abilities are and are not and so on. That's the process. I mean I guess nobody
can say it's a perfect process, but that's, for this Town that's the way it works. So okay. So call the
question.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 5,750 +/- sq. ft.
car wash building with associated access drives and queuing lanes, and 1S self-serve vacuum area. The
applicant has included a sidewalk to be coordinated with others along the property line on Weeks Road.
Project includes site work for access onto Route 9 through existing traffic light and through adjoining
parcel and access on Weeks Road.Project also includes associated site work for landscaping,lighting and
stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance,new commercial construction shall
be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board
determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article
9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval approved as further discussed below,
A. The project a Carwash building,Vacuum units and associated site work is a permitted use in the
Commercial Intensive CI zoning district and the Car Wash Building and Vacuum units have been
designed to be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area.
B. The project will be capable of adequately handling the traffic generated by the proposed uses and
existing uses in the area as identified in the Traffic Study and reviewed by the Town Designated
Engineer-5/31/2022 noting minimal impacts at the two intersections.
C. The project's off-street parking and loading facilities will be adequate with respect to location,
arrangement and number.
D. The project's pedestrian amenities meet the requirements for site plan approval specifically a
sidewalk to be constructed in coordination with others including but not limited to Queensbury
Highway Department.
E. The project's stormwater management and drainage design are adequate and meet the
requirements outlined in Chapter 147 Stormwater Management of the Town Ordinance for site
plan approval.
F. The project will be served by Town water and sewer facilities and there is adequate capacity to
provide these services.
G. The proposed landscaping will enhance the project and provide adequate mitigation of visual and
noise impacts without interfering with visibility for traffic entering and exiting the project.
H. The project will not interfere with emergency vehicle trips and will provide adequate access to the
project for emergency vehicles.
I. The project's stormwater management system will eliminate any potential ponding or flooding on
paved surfaces and exposed soils will be covered to prevent erosion during and after construction.
J. The town will be able to provide the services and facilities needed for the project by utilizing
existing services and facilities.
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation and the County responded in November of 2021-
Concur with Local Board;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration
Determination of Non-Significance on April 19,2022;
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/16/2021 and continued the
public hearing to 4/19/2022,when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4/19/2022;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 71-2021 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP,- Introduced by
Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
S
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
1) Waivers requested granted for the buffer on the west property border to maintain the existing 10
ft.vegetation and to install a privacy fence with height of Sft along the vacuum unit facility—fence
is 50 ft.from west property line and at least 152 ft.in length as noted on the plan;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not
yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not
be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;-
f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan
MR. TRAVER-So the resolution passes. Thank you,everybody. The next section of our agenda is Tabled
Items, and the first item is CVE North America,Inc. This is for Site Plan 66-2021, Freshwater Wetlands
3-2021 and Special Use Permit 4-2021 and PZ 0720-2021.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO.66-2021,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2021,SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2021,PZ
0720-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. OWNER(S): FOREST
ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT. ZONING: CLI, CI. LOCATION: 53 QUAKER RIDGE
BLVD/EAST COUNTY LINE RD.(NATIONAL GRID). APPLICANT PROPOSES A SOLAR FARM
ON SITE 303.11-1-4.1,WITH ACCESS BY RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH PARCEL 303.15-1-25.2. THE
PROJECT WILL INCLUDE OVER 13,000 PANELS ON A 30 PLUS ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE.
THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES PANEL PLACEMENT, DRIVE AREAS, EQUIPMENT BOXES
AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT INVOLVES A PETITION OF ZONE
CHANGE FOR PARCEL 303.15-1-25.2 FROM CI TO CLI. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN,
SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
179-15-050, TOWN BOARD REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW FOR SEQR
AND RECOMMENDATION. SITE PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND FRESHWATER
WETLANDS REVIEW AFTER THE TOWN BOARD COMPLETES PETITION OF ZONE
CHANGE. CROSS REFERENCE: DIS 3-2021, PZ 720-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL:
NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 80 ACRES/6.39 ACRES.
TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4.1,303.15-1-25.2,303.11-1-5. SECTION: 179-5-140,179-9-040.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
JARED LUSK&LOU GRECO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So I'm just going to sort of skip to the end. The applicant has provided materials in
response to the Engineering comments. The Board has received the Engineering comments. Hopefully
everyone has had an opportunity to review that. It looks like there's only three comments left to address,
and in the sense of what this Board could do this evening,you could start the SEQR process if you wish to,
and if there's any hang up you could also table that information,table the SEQR process and wait until a
response is provided. So I think that's where we're at at this point.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back.
MR. LUSK-Good evening, members of the Board. Jared Lusk from the law firm of Nixon and Peabody,
and we'll go around the group here and everyone can introduce themselves. I have allergies so my voice
isn't very great.
MR. GRECO-Good evening. Lou Greco from Techtonic Engineering.
VISHAL MOHAN
MR. MOHAN-Good evening.. Vishal Mohan from CVE North America
CRISTINA TAPIA
MS. TAPIA-Good evening. Cristina Tapia from CVE.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So when last we discussed this project with you,there was some follow
up work related to the engineering review that you were going to be doing and I think we were waiting for
better weather. I understand you've made some progress in that area. Can you give us an update?
MR.LUSK-Yes. We responded to the series of comments in correspondence dated April 13`h. We received
supplemental comments with that submission and then again on May 11`h we again responded to those
supplemental comments which lead to your summary documentation. So again the comments were
related primarily to the stormwater management review,technical comments from the engineer.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. I'm sorry, what were the latest engineering comments that you responded
to,the date? I have a letter,I believe in our packet we have a May 4rh letter from,is that the most recent
letter?
MR. LUSK-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GRECO-Those were the engineering comments and our response was May 11`h
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you have already responded to these?
MR. GRECO-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and have you had further communication from LaBella? Have you gotten any
response to your response?
MR.LUSK-We have not,and I don't think we fully expect to. They weren't comments,they didn't appear
to be anything that was lingering or that would cause any additional questions. We did reach out to the
office but did not hear anything.
MR. TRAVER-Well,the main reason I was asking is the next step in our process would be to conduct the
SEQR resolution under the SEQR Act, and when we have open items under engineering it's a little bit of
a concern,but maybe we can go through them and see. It sounds as though you're pretty confident that
you've resolved them. Do you have the May 4 letter in front of you or with you? I'm just looking,I mean
maybe we could go through them. There's only like three outstanding comments that we can cover. The
first one being the discrepancy in the Hydro CAD model,and the Town Designated Engineer has asked for
a revision to that. Have you completed that?
MR. LUSK-We have.
MR.TRAVER-You have,and were there any issues in complying with that? No? Okay,and then Number
Two,there's a discussion about the pre-treatment.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. LUSK-The void space.
MR. TRAVER-Is part of the pre-treatment? Yes.
MR. LUSK-So the model was updated and included addressing the issues.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again you feel that you've addressed that.
MR. LUSK-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and there was a comment about the decommissioning and you submitted a
decommissioning plan for this.
MR. LUSK-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Which the Town Board will review in any case. So it appears that we're in good shape as
far as the engineering. Does any of the other Board members have concerns or questions about the
engineering that would make us resist going to the SEQR review portion?
MR. DIXON-The one item that I had we can address in site plan.
MR. TRAVER-An environmental impact?
MR. DIXON-Well, it is because in the packet that you had provided, the bat, it was listed on here as a
Federally protected species that was noted,but when the survey was done,it was done on December 4`h
and the temperature range was between 30 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit. So if there were bats in that area,
they would not have been moving around at the time. So if the applicant would be acceptable to the
thought of installing bat boxes and maintaining them,I think that would certainly negate this.
MR. GRECO-So we did address this by reaching out to U.S. Fish and Wildlife. They asked us to do an
absence presence survey. The timeframe for that to happen hasn't been conducted yet because of weather
as you said hasn't been conducive. So a work plan was proposed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
depending on the results from the absence presence survey,they would respond as to whether or not the
work plan is was appropriate.
MR. DIXON-So let me ask you this question, then. So if the study comes back and there is protected
species in there,what would your plan be?
MR. GRECO-I don't have a work plan. I'm not a bat specialist so I couldn't really speak to it.
MR. DIXON-Neither am I. I know they like bat boxes. So I guess where I'm going with this,if there's no
Federal regulations that would prohibit it, if you wanted to be proactive and keep it moving along, and
again I would recommend if you want to put bat boxes up,if there's a number that would work for you,
and would also agree to maintain those for the life of the facility,if you want to keep things moving forward.
MR. TRAVER-Wouldn't that depend on the presence of the bats,though?
MR. DIXON-Well,it would, otherwise I think I don't know if we can necessarily move forward without
the study being done.
MR. LA SARSO-Wouldn't that really be dealt with by the Endangered Species Act,the Feds would take
care of that,if there was an issue to be had. Certainly the Feds would take care of that. Right?
MR. GRECO-Right. The Fish and Wildlife would weigh in on whether or not the work plan that we had
proposed was adequate.
MR. LA SARSO-If it wasn't,then they would stop the project is my understanding. We wouldn't really.
Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-So I understand what Mike's trying to get at is how do we review that section of SEQR
and move forward. So some language could be is the applicant could propose mitigating measures once
the work plan has been evaluated. Those mitigating measures could be bat boxes or other items.
MR. TRAVER-Or mitigation as recommended by Fish and Wildlife.
MRS. MOORE-So usually we see this letter come from DEC and they'll tell us that the applicant can't do
work for construction during a certain period of time or when they can do construction. I'm assuming it
would be the same with Fish and Wildlife is that they'll give us that sort of guidance at some point,as part
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
of,maybe ultimately part of Site Plan Review,but if there is a stop measure in there that says you can't go
any further because you have a hole back in that area which I don't feel there is, then the whole project
would stop.
MR. DIXON-Okay. So really what I'm proposing really doesn't need to be in there because DEC has the?
MRS. MOORE-So what I'm suggesting is that,usually when you go through the SEQR form you're going
to say is it small or medium to large impact. So if you say small,you can also add that note that the Board
discussed the bat, the items in regards to the bat and understand that there's a work plan that's being
reviewed at this time. If there's any mitigating measures they'll be implemented appropriately.
MR. GRECO-And that letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife is included in Appendix K of our SWPPP. So
again we fully,we can't proceed unless,if there's something that's present. So I think the condition as you
just described requiring us to comply with any mitigation required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
MR. TRAVER-We can include that as part of the SEQR review.
MR. DIXON-The items associated with the brown bat. How did you want that to go again,Laura? That
would be appropriate? The short version.
MRS. MOORE-The short version. If we get to that item on the SEQR, you could potentially say small,
and then say the applicant has provided mitigating measures for this.
MR. GRECO-I don't think we've provided them yet,but we will.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Will provide mitigating measures after the work plan has been reviewed.
MR. DIXON-I think sometimes people think we don't look at SEQR or take it seriously, and we do.
MR. TRAVER-Any other environmental concerns that we want addressed for the SEQR component?
MRS.MOORE-So,before you do that,I don't actually have the SEQR form in front of me. I can go through
the Long Form with you. Do you have the second part of it? Is Part II in there?
MR. TRAVER-Or maybe give us the specific question and item so we can include that in the resolution.
And just to point out to Board members as well,we're not going to be doing Site Plan Review this evening.
We're just doing a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. DIXON-Laura, does it have to be that specific, or can I just say on Part II it has been reviewed and
completed by the Planning Board and identified one small item?
MRS. MOORE-It's real quick. It's not too involved. If you're ready,I'll go through this.
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-So the SEQR Long Form Part II. Impact on Land, Proposed action may involve
construction on,or physical alteration of,the land surface of the proposed site. And as you can see there's
some items you can look at down below. Overall it's either a no or a yes. If you looked at, A. The proposed
action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. It talks about
slopes of 150/o or greater. Involves construction of land on bedrock. I don't believe that's the case here.
Excavation or land removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. That doesn't exist here.
Construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. That may be possible but
unlikely I would guess. The proposed action may result in increased erosion. I think this application is a
fairly level site in the sense that we're replacing the project. I don't think it's any significance in slopes,
and it's definitely not located within a coastal erosion hazard area. So the Board could either choose no
or yes. Is there an impact on land?
MR. DIXON-1 would say no.
MRS. MOORE-Number Two, Impact on Geological Features. The proposed action may result in the
modification or destruction of,or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site
MR. DIXON-1 would say no.
MR. MAGOWAN-One question. Back on that first one,I was actually reading and then I kind of heard
part of the questions,but,you know,one of them I was reading on the FAA and the glare, and I'm looking
at one of the sheets here in J.,you know,no potential for glare predicted in the runway.
MR. TRAVER-They're using panels that are designed to not produce glare.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. LA SARSO-There's a glare study,right?
MR. MAGOWAN-I just want to make sure. It's saying, and I was reading into,I just want to make sure
that if there is anything for planes coming in,you're not predicting it,but you're saying it's not predicted,
but do you really know?
MR. LUSK-A glare study was done. Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I just want to make sure,maybe how to answer one of these questions. Sorry.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I believe we're on Impacts on Surface Water. The proposed action may affect one
or more wetlands or other surface water bodies. So the project is subject to a Freshwater Wetlands Permit,
and that's only because it's within 70 feet of a wetland and they're putting some drive areas which is
permitted as part of wetlands for access to their project site. So I don't necessarily think that there's, I
don't think that there's moderate to a large impact based on my understanding of the project. There's a
few items here. I don't know if you want me to go through the items directly about what may be
considered. I can go through them. It's up to the Board if they want me to go through that. So right now
if you answer yes then I have to go through A through L.
MR. DIXON-Not for this project.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,I don't think so.
MRS. MOO RE-All right. Impact on Groundwater. The proposed action may result in new or additional
use of ground water,or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
MR. DIXON-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Flooding. The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to
flooding.
MR. DIXON-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impacts on Air. The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
MR. DIXON-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS.MOO RE-Impacts on Plants and Animals. The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna.
MR. TRAVER-Here's where we get into the bats.
MRS. MOORE-So there's always an Other Impact.
MR. LA SARSO-So that would be the one.
MRS. MOORE-That would be the one where you would expound upon it as Part II, rather in Part III,
where you would say you evaluated,you've discussed the bat item.
MR. TRAVER-Potential for impacts on.
MRS. MOORE-Potential impacts on the bat.
MR. LA SARSO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-So then no or small impact may occur and that would be what my understanding of the
Board is,is that there's,at this point the applicant has proposed that they will provide mitigation measures
if applicable.
MR. TRAVER-Sounds good.
MR. MAGOWAN-Laura,I've got another question,and it would be a question to the applicant.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MRS. MOORE-So we're not doing Site Plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-No,I know,but on SEQR it was talking about water,groundwater and stuff like that.
I know it's a high water table all around that and they're placing these panels on the higher ground, all
right, which happens to be really to me the evaporation areas, right,you know, you take away the high
grounds where the sun can hit the ground and the grass and dry out some of the earth to help absorb some
of that water. So now you're taking that sun and creating energy,which I'm happy about. My question
would be,what would that do to the high water table,because we're taking some of that evaporation area
away to raise that groundwater? Do you follow what I'm saying? I mean it rains and you've got your
puddles, and then you have your dry land, and the sun hits and dries up some of that and the water gets
sucked over there. So now what we're doing is we're taking away that area that could have the sun,you're
using the sun. We have panels. I just have a concern because I just know that that whole area is wet and
unfortunately most of,water seeks its own level and the County Airport is right down there with the low,
and I've seen it where they've developed areas and they've put up buildings and they've concentrated
they've concentrated the storm areas but what they've done is they've taken the fields and the trees and all
that,the buildings, and then what happens,the streams and everything,you know,the water's there, and
then when it rains the streams get bigger. I just want to make sure that,it's more of a question,since we're
in SEQR,because more of an engineer,I might have just had bad dreams last night. I don't know,but it's
just a question.
MR. LUSK--I understand the concept of the concern,but.
MR. GRECO-I'll try and explain as best I can our position on that. Essentially we're already standing off
100 feet to honor the Town adjacent wetlands area,with the exception of some fencing,which would have
no impact to the areas being dried out,and the access road which is actually a grass surface. So that would
also have no impact on areas being dried out. There is adequate spacing in between the panels, which I
think would also help alleviate any conditions that you're bringing up as a concern and the panels are
trackers so they do change positions throughout the day. So, you know, they're also designed with the
spacing in mind so that we don't cast shadows on the racks in front or behind them. Again,I think aid in
the evapotranspiration that you described.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well there is room in that. Air movement is another key thing. All right. Thank you.
MR. LUSK-You're welcome.
MR. MAGOWAN-We're doing SEQR. I just want to make sure it's perfect.
MRS. MOORE-I believe we're on Impact on Agricultural Resources. The proposed action may impact
agricultural resources.
MR. DIXON-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Aesthetic Resources. The land use of the proposed action are obviously
different from,or in sharp contrast to,current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic
or aesthetic resource.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources. The proposed action may occur in or
adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. LONGACKER-I do see it marked yes on the Part I form. Did you get your confirmation from SHPO
on that?
MR. LUSK-We did. We got a SHPO no effect letter.
MRS. MOO RE-I figured that was in there and I knew you might ask that. So at this point it's no. Soon
to 11. Impacts on Open Space and Recreation. The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational
opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space
plan.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. LA SARSO-No.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MRS. MOORE-Twelve. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located
within or adjacent to a critical environmental area.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Transportation. The proposed action may result in a change to existing
transportation systems.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Energy. The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of
energy.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS.MOO RE-Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light. The proposed action may result in an increase in noise,
odors,or outdoor lighting.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Impact on Human Health. The proposed action may have an impact on human health
from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. MOORE-Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted
land use plans.
MR. LA SARSO-No.
MRS. MOORE-Eighteen. Consistency with Community Character. The proposed action is inconsistent
with the existing community character.
MR. DIXON-No.
MRS. MOORE-That completes the Long Form SEQR Part II. And then in Part III I would complete the
items that were identified in reference to the bat.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any other environmental impacts,concerns that we want to address as
part of the SEQR resolution? I'm not hearing any,so I guess we're ready.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#66-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA,INC.
The applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1,with access by right of way through parce1303.15-
1-25.2. The project will include over 13,000 panels on a 30 plus acre portion of the site. The project work
includes panel placement,drive areas,equipment boxes and stormwater management.The project involves
a petition of zone change for parcel 303.15-1-25.2 from CI to CLI. Project subject to site plan, special use
permit and freshwater wetlands permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-050, Town Board referred to the
Planning Board to review for SEQR and recommendation. Site plan, special use permit, and freshwater
wetlands review after the Town Board completes Petition of Zone change.
The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this
negative declaration is issued.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 66-2021, FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2021, &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board;
2. Part III of the Long EAF completed noting with impact on flora and fauna to be identified in Part
III,with a small impact identified as potential impact the protected bat population. Applicant will
provide mitigating measures after work plan has been submitted and reviewed by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife.
Motion second by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. So the next task we have is to consider the recommendation to the Town Board
as favorable or unfavorable for a zoning change from Commercial Intensive, which it currently is, to
Commercial Light Industrial,which allows the presence of the solar array. Does anyone have any concerns
that we would want to communicate to the Town Board regarding that zoning change?
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,just to make sure we're doing our due diligence. So when we recommend a
zoning change,that's for,not just this parcel?
MRS.MOO RE-It's actually specific to this parcel to change it from CI to CLI. So it's Commercial Intensive
to Commercial Light Industrial,so this parcel that they're trying to get access through.
MR. DIXON-All right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. With that clarification, does anyone else have any concerns about this? All right.
Then I guess we're ready for a motion.
RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: CVE NORTH AMERICA,INC.
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1, with access by right of way through
parcel 303.15-1-25.2. The project will include over 13,000 panels on a 30 plus acre portion of the site. The
project work includes panel placement, drive areas, equipment boxes and stormwater management. The
project involves a petition of zone change for parcel 303.15-1-25.2 from CI to CLI. Project subject to site
plan, special use permit and freshwater wetlands permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-050, Town Board
referred to the Planning Board to review for SEQR and recommendation. Site plan,special use permit,and
freshwater wetlands review after the Town Board completes Petition of Zone change.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change from Commercial
Intensive to Commercial Light Industrial. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning
Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020, resolution 359, 2021/dated
December 6,2021;
MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING
CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL;
The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot
be mitigated with this proposal.
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're off to the Town Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Can I ask one question before they leave?
MR. TRAVER-Sure.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-It intrigues me with the moving panels. How much more power can you get out of
those moving panels?
MR. TRAVER-Because they track the sun?
MR. MAGOWAN-Because they track the sun,yes. It's just amazing because I look at the field outside of
Whitehall,you know,they just follow the land but they're just flat and they don't move. So it just interests
me. The cost to do that is unbelievable,but I was just wondering,obviously it must pay for itself.
It depends on the weather and the location at that locality,but usually from 100/o to 200/o is what we usually
see. On this project we estimate it to be like we're at close to 200/o.
MR. TRAVER-And because of the extra initial costs and the maintenance costs,you must do some kind of
a study before you make that decision,right,whether you do fixed or?
MR. That's correct. It used to be costlier than the fixed ones, the moving ones. With the market it's
similar price right now. It's not that costly anymore. Everything is costly right now with the steel prices
and everything.
MR. TRAVER-Interesting.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well it's interesting. Like I said,I just can picture that and tracking it. I would have
thought you would have gotten more because you get on it earlier and stay on it later,right,but it must be
the height of the sun and the intensity,too.
Yes,it has an effect.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'll do some more research so I'm not holding everybody up,but thank you.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks very much. We'll see you when you come back.
MR. LUSK-Thanks.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under Recommendations from the Planning Board to the
ZBA, and the first application is Beth Portuese, Site Plan 28-2022.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
SITE PLAN NO.28-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. BETH PORTUESE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING PLLC. OWNER(S): BETH AND THOMAS PORTUESE. ZONING: WR.
LOCATION: 28 LANSBURG LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A HOME OF 1,064
SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF 3,184 SQ. FT.
ALSO TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS A PATIO OF 1,219 SQ. FT. A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 5,658 SQ.
FT. A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED. SITE WORK FOR GRADING FOR THE
PROJECT AND ANEW DRIVEWAY TO BIG BAY ROAD OVER PARCEL 3169-1-27.2. LOTS ARE
IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP BUT RELATED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-030. 179-6-060,
179-4-050, SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIE AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT
FOR ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AD 7-
2006,AV 17-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON
RIVER,SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRES AND 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-3 AND 3169-
1-27.2(ACCESS DRIVE). SECTION: 179-4-030,179-6-060,179-4-050.
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to remove an existing home of 1,064 square feet to construct a
new home with an attached garage. The building has a footprint of 3,277, construction of a patio on the
shore side of 1,219 and a new floor area of 5,751 square feet. A new septic system is to be installed and the
applicant proposes access over an adjoining lot which is to access Big Bay Road and relief is for required
road frontage of 150 feet and zero feet is proposed.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. CENTER-Good evening Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. Mr. Portuese is in the audience
this evening also.. As Laura said, this is an existing parcel that has an existing older camp on it. The
Portueses actually own this parcel,the parcel next to it,and one to the south of that. They're looking to
upgrade their home and build a new home on this parcel. The existing access to the parcel is through
Lansburg Lane. We're proposing to come off Big Bay Road. Originally, back a year or so ago, they got
approval from the Town to connect to the Town water line on Big Bay Road. So there was an access
previously created from Big Bay Road across this parcel and into to the water line. So we're planning on
using the same access that's there now for the driveway for the new home. As Laura said,we're proposing
a 3,000 square foot home with a walkout basement to a patio on the lower level to try to keep the height
of the house underneath the 2S foot requirement,and also keep the disturbance pattern the same area that
the existing house was located.
MR. TRAVER-So the applicant owns the adjacent lot for the access?
MR. CENTER-Yes,they do.
MR. TRAVER-So that's interesting because the variance is for frontage and yet they own the frontage.
MR. CENTER-There still would not be enough for two lots to have frontage on that one, and this is an
existing non-conforming lot. They've deeded themselves access for this project. If anything were to be
built on the vacant lot,the same driveway would be used because any house that would be built would be
built on that side of the property because of the way the contour of the land would go. So it would be a
shared driveway if anything were to be built on the vacant parcel to the south.
MR. TRAVER-Gotcha.
MR. DEEB-The zero foot setback is on their lot,both of their lots.
MR. CENTER-The road frontage would be,the zero road frontage is for just the lot we're proposing. The
other one would be existing non-conforming. It would have some road frontage.
MR.TRAVER-Well we don't have a public hearing on this because it's just for a recommendation,but I'll
ask if other Board members have questions for the applicant on this proposal?
MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my question would be,what are they asking for the variances again?
MR. TRAVER-Road frontage.
MR. DEEB Just the road frontage. Zero feet.
MR. MAGOWAN-And they own the lot next door.
MR. CENTER-That is correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-And if you combine the two you still wouldn't have the road frontage you need.
MR. CENTER-There would be road frontage,but combining the two is not proposed at this time.
MRS. MOORE-And if they did a lot line adjustment it would create a different type of variance having,
reducing one lot less than the required.
MR.CENTER-Right. You'd actually reduce the existing lot to having less than the required road frontage.
MR. TRAVER-So there's no advantage.
MR.CENTER-There's no advantage. We did look at that to try to find away to go through there,but you
would be making two non-conforming versus one.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? Does anyone have any concerns about this variance request for road
frontage that we would want to pass along to the ZBA as they prepare to hear this application? I mean
it's a little unusual but not unheard of. All right. Well I'm not hearing any concerns. So I guess we're
ready for the motion
MR. DIXON-Those sites all through there are old camps.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV #17-2022 BETH PORTUESE
1S
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove a home of
1,064 sq. ft. to construct a new home with an attached garage of 3,277 sq. ft. Also to be constructed is a
patio of 1,219 sq. ft. A new floor area of 5,751 sq. ft. A new septic system will be installed. Site work for
grading for the project and a new driveway to Big Bay Road over parcel 316.9-1-27.2. Lots are in separate
ownership but related. Pursuant to chapter 179-4-030, 179-6-060, 1794-050, site plan for construction
within 50 feet of 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is
sought for access from adjoining lot. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO.17-2022 BETH PORTUESE,Introduced
by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. CENTER-Thank you. Mr.Hutchins will be handling this when we come back from the variance as I
will be out of town for the next meeting. Are there any particular questions that you folks may have,
anything in particular?
MR. TRAVER-Well,I'll open that up,again,to members of the Planning Board.
MR.DIXON-I know I'll always,even though it's the Hudson River and it's not Lake George,I'll be looking
at river frontage plantings,things of that nature. I don't think there was anything else.
MR. CENTER-It does have a steep slope that goes from the top of the slope down. There are plans to do
a rock garden at the top of the slope and protect that edging of the slope in that area,but we're greater than
the 35 feet out. They will be cleaning up any of the trees that are in there that need to be taken care of at
this time as part of the project,but there isn't a plan to re-plant that buffer just because of the steepness of
the slope,but it is fairly grown with whatever the natural covering is down there.
MR. DIXON-And you don't believe there are any height issues with the new building?
MR. CENTER-We're underneath.
MR. DIXON-New septic which is always wonderful to have here near the water.
MR. CENTER-Yes,they're in good soils. Okay. Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item on our agenda is Eric Carlson, Site Plan 26-2022 and Freshwater
Wetlands 5-2022. Again,this is a recommendation to the ZBA regarding the variance.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ERIC
CARLSON. AGENT(S): EDP (CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING:
WR. LOCATION: 67 BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A
FOOTPRINT OF 2,381 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES PORCH/DECK AREAS AND LIVING SPACE
OF DETACHED BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 873 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AREA WITH
DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6.,194 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING
ARRANGEMENT, AS WELL AS GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. THE HOUSE IS TO
HAVE 3 BEDROOMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,147 CHAPTER 94,NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, A NEW
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT.OF 15%SLOPES,WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS,AND
DRIVEWAY OF 10% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND GARAGE HEIGHT,
INFILTRATION DEVICE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 241-
2019,AV 20-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,
CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-84. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,
147 CHAPTER 94.
JOE DANNIBLE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a
new home with a footprint of 2,3SI square feet,this includes the living areas and the detached building as
well. The project includes,in the detached building,an S73 square foot area for the garage itself. The new
floor area total is 6,194 square feet. The project includes stormwater management, alteration of a shared
driveway and parking arrangement as well as grading and erosion control and in references to the variances
being requested, the detached building is to be located five feet from the property line where a 25 foot
setback is required. The detached building is also 30 feet 7 inches where accessory buildings are limited
to 16 feet. The stormwater device is to be 49 feet where a 100 foot setback is required.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR.DANNIBLE-Good evening. I am Joe Dannible with Environmental Design Partnership,hereon behalf
of Eric Carlson and his application to re-build his property at 67 Brayton Lane. Laura did a great job in
identifying the project itself as a re-development of an existing property,removal of the existing camp and
associated garage, re-location of an existing shared driveway for previous neighbors to the east. The
applicant is looking at four variances for the application. I'd just like to point out that the first variance is
aside yard setback variance. The existing garage is within six feet of that property line. We're proposing
basically to re-build off that existing garage. That's slightly bigger than the current building code. So
we're only about five feet from,the existing proposed is only a foot change from what currently everyone
is used to. The second variance that we're looking at is this building. Even though the roof lines are all
attached,the building is considered a separate accessory structure. The building itself,at its highest point,
is no more than the 27 feet, but if you measure from the ground, the building itself is somewhere in the
range of about 21 to 22 feet in height, again, larger and higher than the 16 feet. However, the existing
structure, accessory garage structure, is well over 2S feet which even above the allowable height for a
building. So we are bringing this building more into conformance than what's existing there on the
property. Another variance we are proposing infiltration device within 49 feet of the lake. Currently
there is no stormwater management on the entire property. We're only slightly increasing the
impermeable area on the property but are providing stormwater management for the house,the driveway
and for the re-located drive. We are upgrading the property with all stormwater. We are placing,
however, because of the location of the house, the existing conditions, we're only going to have the
stormwater 49 feet off the lake. Last variance we're looking for is for the hard surfacing. Hard surfaces
are not allowed within 50 feet of the lake. We are proposing the most eastern corner of the property, a
small portion of the retaining wall, at its closest point 47 feet to the lake. We're trying to get about a 25
foot length of that back to the 50 foot setback. So again I think it's a great re-development project. We're
introducing stormwater which currently there is none. We're basically mitigating the existing footprint
that's on the property,this disturbed area on the property,bringing the buildings,the accessory structure
closer into conformance with the Code,and only slightly increasing the side yard setback for the property.
MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for that overview. The thing that really caught my eye,of course,was the
height,the 30 feet 7 inches with a 16 foot length.
MR. DANNIBLE-I don't know where the 30 feet 7 inches came from. All of our application materials
identify a height of 27 feet 6 inches.
MRS. MOORE-Let me take a look.
MR. TRAVER-So 27 feet 6 inches is the correct height.
MRS. MOORE-The application says it's 30 feet 7 inches. If it's changed that's great,but that's what's on
the application itself.
MR. DANNBLE-Yes, that's different than the application I believe was submitted, I thought was
submitted. So you're identifying it as 27 feet 9 inches.
MR.TRAVER-Okay. In any case,it's a very significant variance,and I'm just wondering,is there anything
you can do to come closer to the limit of 16 feet? I mean I understand your point and we hear that
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
infrequently with regard to the flow of the ground and the height of the ground,but I mean that's almost
twice the allowed size. I mean that 2000/o variance is a lot.
MR.DANNIBLE-And I guess the thing that really strikes that is we really don't believe this is an accessory
structure. Although there are two separate foundations,the buildings are connected with a roof system.
There is a continuous roof that is attached all the way around the property, and therefore it appears as a
single building. If we really needed to we could connect that breezeway. It would be a single structure
with an attached garage, and therefore that building would comply with the Code and we wouldn't be
looking for a height variance. We do like the idea of the breezeway. It gives better flow of pedestrians
and visitors coming from the parking area to the front of the property without having to go through the
house. Frankly that's how we prefer to keep it,but again, I guess the way it was determined in the Code
that it is an accessory structure. So we are looking for a variance, and if we have to we can attach that
structure legally and make that variance go away.
MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Well that's an explanation anyway. Thank you for that. Questions,
comments from other members of the Board?
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,if they were to attach it,is that all calculated into the floor area?
MRS. MOORE-The only thing they'd have to add into that is just confirming that that breezeway is
entered and conforming to having it make the buildings connected. Sometimes the breezeway is not just
a covered walkway and things like that. I would have to have it evaluated.
MR. TRAVER-So if the applicant were to revise the application, you'd want to confirm those.
Understood.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-But they're not proposing that this evening.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. TRAVER-That was just a clarification on the nature of the height.
MR. DANNIBLE-But we're still good with floor area ratio. We have 1.25 acres of land.
MRS.MOORE-Right. It doesn't necessarily change the floor area. There maybe,I don't think it changes
at all,but I don't want to say that for sure until I see a plan.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,okay.
MR. DIXON-1 think, Mr. Chairman,you touched on a point as far as the height of the garage. Overall
when we look at the setback from the property and everything,maybe the ZBA would want to look at the
accessory building,really focus on that. Because I think it might be a little bit better.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is it an accessory building or not,since it is attached?
MRS. MOORE-It's not attached.
MR. DIXON-At this point.
MR. TRAVER-It has been ruled an accessory structure.
MR. DEEB-But it could be attached.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I mean.
MR. TRAVER-They could revise the plan and attach it,but right now by review of the Planning Office it's
been assessed as an accessory structure.
MR. MAGOWAN-Doesn't it say a covered deck here and that goes right up and ties it in?
MRS. MOORE-That's not considered attached. It's considered a covered deck.
MR. DIXON-I guess in my mind by addressing and looking at the height,it may also address the nature of
the setback variance being so close to the property line.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. They're basically using the existing footprint pretty much. Right?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. DANNIBLE-Yes, within the existing footprint pretty much, maybe a foot wider. We lowered the
roofline of the existing structure. The existing structure is over 2S feet. So we are bringing that structure
down.
MR.DIXON-And getting it further away from the property,even though it's where it was,kind of touching
on site plan discussion which I don't want to get into, but I guess where I'm looking at for the ZBA
recommendation it would be nice if you pulled it farther away from the property line. Although there was
a structure there,but you have an opportunity to improve the land and the property. Something to think
about at the ZBA.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking at the print,here, of the existing, and it looks like the neighbor's garage is
Pretty much sitting right on the property line. Correct?
MR. DANNIBLE-Yes,the neighbor's garage is only about two feet from the property line. Their overhang
is less than a foot away.
MR. MAGOWAN-Let's go back to this garage accessory. It's tied together by the roofs,but since it's not
enclosed it is considered.
MRS. MOORE-They actually have it detached. I mean it's not.
MR. DANNIBLE-The roofs are connected.
MRS. MOORE-Connected. But it's still considered a detached building. It's not a, you would see the
addition,the fence, you'd see a hallway.
MR. MAGOWAN-I've just got to get clarification. I guess I'm on a roll tonight with everything. If they
closed in the front of that deck and put some windows and created a hallway.
MRS. MOORE-Possibly.
MR. MAGOWAN-That would be considered an attached.
MRS. MOORE-I can't guarantee it until I can see a plan, because what sometimes people perceive as
attaching their garage to their house, and they put in this breezeway that is not necessarily considered the
living area of the house.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean that would require an updated plan and another assessment of the proposed
plan.
MR. MAGOWAN-You're reading into it. I just, the roofs are tied together. The one roof ties into the
other roof, and what they want is an open concept and to me I disagree with that. To me they are tied
together and it's a flow. Just because it doesn't have a hallway shouldn't be considered, and with the
neighbor's garage so close to the line, and it seems like you've maybe moved,straightened it out a little bit
and moved it back, what, like a foot and a half maybe from the existing garage? I'm just looking at the
picture.
MR. DANNIBLE-We made it parallel with the property line and about a foot closer.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's a nice looking property. You have quite a bit of property there and the wall, I
understand making it straighter. I don't have a problem with the wall there,because I can seethe shoreline
setback,but I don't have a problem with the detached garage,but I will be calling it attached in my mind..
I've done a lot of building in my day.
MR. TRAVER-Anyone else have any concerns that we want to share with the ZBA as we refer this?
MR. LONGACKER-I'm not really concerned with that wall,either,but maybe consider making it,maybe
putting like a 12 degree angle on it. That way you could be totally out of the 50 foot setback,and if you're
doing that just because your stormwater management area.
MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. Let me just clarify. So he mentioned the variance about hard surfacing. It's
not a variance. It's actually just hard surfacing is subject to site plan review within 50 feet. So that isn't
a variance.
MR. LONGACKER-Gotcha.
MR. TRAVER-So we'll look at that when it comes back.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry,didn't mean to open that can of worms on you.
MR. DANNIBLE-I think I opened it.
MR. DIXON-Well,I guess there's really nothing new that we're identifying. It's already in the variance to
send to the ZBA.
MR. TRAVER-Correct. All right. So are we ready for that referral motion? Okay.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#20-2022 ERIC CARLSON
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing
home and detached garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,3SI sq. ft. which includes
porch/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes S73 sq. ft. footprint area
detached garage.New floor area to be 6,194 sq.ft.The project includes stormwater management,alteration
of a shared driveway and parking arrangement,as well as grading and erosion control.The house is to have
3 bedrooms. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147 chapter 94, new floor area in a CEA, hard
surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,a new structure within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes,work within 100 feet of
wetlands, and driveway of 100/o slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Relief is sought for setbacks and garage height,infiltration device setback.Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO.20-2022 ERIC CARLSON
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Did you want to identify that you were concerned about height or not?
MR.TRAVER-I think our discussion about it and the fact that it's one of the specific variances that they're
requesting,it's going to be a matter of discussion with them.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DANNIBLE-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under referrals to the ZBA,is 3 Antigua Road,LLC, Site
Plan 25-2022
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC. AGENT(S): EDP
(CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 &z 5
ANTIGUA ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,145 SQ. FT. HOME
WITH A 180 SQ. FT. DECK FOOTPRINT; TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 6,483 SQ. FT. THE NEW
HOME WILL BE 37 FT.IN HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDES 8,145 SQ.FT.OF HARD
SURFACING AND 1,400 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PAVERS. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED
IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE
GEORGE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW ENTRY
PORCH OVERHANG TO THE EXISTING HOME AND A PORTION OF NEW HARD SURFACE
AREA FOR THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED ON THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020,179-3-040,179-6-065 AND CHAPTER 147,SITE PLAN FOR
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-2014,AV 22-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY
2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .74 ACRES AND .04 ACRES. TAX
MAP NO.239.17-1-2 AND 239.17-1-1. SECTION: 179-9-020,179-6-065.
MR. TRAVER-And I understand,Laura,that this is being requested to be tabled.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So I'm going to ask you to table it, the Planning Board recommendation, to the
first meeting in June, and I'll explain that they've been given until this Thursday to get updated
information, and my understanding right now is that it's a smaller building. So the relief being requested
is less. So I gave them that opportunity to update their plans.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it looks as though that would be a referral,or a table,rather,to June 21.
MR. DIXON-Any updated information by?
MRS. MOORE-By Thursday,which is May 19`h
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#25-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD,LLC
Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,145 sq. ft.home with a 180 sq. ft. deck footprint;total floor area
is 6,483 sq. ft. The new home will be 37 ft. in height. The driveway area includes 8,145 sq. ft. of hard
surfacing and 1,400 sq. ft. of permeable pavers. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury
adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a
new entry porch overhang to the existing home and a portion of new hard surface area for the outdoor
kitchen that is located on the Town of Lake George. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020,179-3-040,179-6-065
and Chapter 147, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 25-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon
who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Molloy.
Tabled until the June 21,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 19,2022.
Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-All right. Let's see, the next section of our agenda is Unapproved Development. This is
also for a recommendation to the ZBA on a number of variances. This is Red's LG,LLC,Site Plan 29-2022.
SITE PLAN NO. 29-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REDS LG LLC. AGENT(S): EDP (NICK
ZEGLEN). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 7, 9 &z 13
NUTLEY LANE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO
EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRD
DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE. SITE WORK HAD STARTED ON ALL THREE BUILDINGS
PRIOR TO REVIEW. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING OF 540 SQ.
FT. OF ONE BEDROOM AND KITCHEN, 288 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH, 24 SQ. FT. COVERED
ENTRY AREA; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO
BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN(FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ.FT.,NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ.FT.
— WALKOUT AREA BELOW ; INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR 13 NUTLEY LANE EXISTING
FLOOR AREA 2,134 WITH FOUR BEDROOMS. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION
AREAS, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL OF 72 FT. IN
LENGTH AT 1.8 FT. IN HEIGHT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA
FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY
LANE,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE;PROJECT SUBJECT TO AREA
VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR 7 AND 9 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NON-
CONFORMING , STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE,
ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT — KITCHEN, AND PERMEABILITY. PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING,
ADDING THIRD DWELLING UNIT, SETBACKS AND STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACK.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OTO THE ZONING BOARD OF
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 37-2021,AV 21-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY
2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.17-
1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,179-6-050,179-13-010,147.
JOE DANNIBLE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units
on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Site work had started on all
three buildings prior to review. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 square feet of one
bedroom and kitchen,2SS square feet of an open porch,24 square foot covered entry area; alterations to 9
Nutley Lane 704 square feet footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen,floor area of 1,40E square feet,new
open deck of 440 square feet—walkout area below, interior alterations for 13 Nutley Lane existing floor
area 2,134 with four bedrooms. Project includes grass depression areas,shoreline plantings,construction
of a retaining wall towards the shoreline. Project subject to new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, and I'm just
going to go to the variances themselves. So nature of the variances,project work existing and proposed
requires relief,setbacks for 7 Nutley Lane area and 9 Nutley Lane. I'm just going to do setbacks. I won't
read through the details of that,in reference to stormwater device also requires setback relief. Permeability
requires relief as well as adding a third dwelling with a kitchen.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again.
MR. DANNIBLE-Hello. Just for the record,Joe Dannible from Environmental Design, here on behalf of
Reds LG,LLC. The firm got involved in the property several weeks ago when it was identified there was
construction going on, on the site as a result of some approvals for a septic system that was constructed.
The applicants were unable to make the meeting tonight. They will be coming tomorrow to the ZBA to
go over the logistics of how that occurred. We are proposing to renovate the existing camp that is 13
Nutley Lane. It's an existing camp. No changes to that camp are proposed other than renovation of the
interior/exterior of the building. We are proposing to place stormwater management devices on the
lakeside of that property and incorporate some retaining walls on the lakeside of that property to help
capture and handle that stormwater. Again,currently there is no stormwater management on the property
anywhere. The second building, 9 Nutley Lane, is being renovated, interior/exterior, and there is an
addition of a deck on the lakeside of that building as well. 7 Nutley is the third structure. It's a pre-
existing structure that had some additions placed on to it. That would be a third, or, sorry, a second
accessory structure. They'd need a variance for that, as well as variances on the lot itself for all the side
yard setbacks. The lot itself is fairly narrow. Most any construction on the property is going to require
some form of variance. There's a shared driveway with this lot and the lands to the north, that brings
access to all of the buildings on both parcels. The parcel to the north also has some structures on it.
MR. TRAVER-So you said that the parties, the representatives of Reds LG, LLC are unable to be here
tonight when we're making the recommendation to the ZBA but after we make the recommendation
they're then going to come to the ZBA?
MR. DANNIBLE-They weren't able to be in town for tonight's meeting. They're coming here for the ZBA
tomorrow.
MR. TRAVER-And who was the contractor that was doing all of this work?
MR. DANNIBLE-I am unaware of what contractor that was.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. DANNIBLE-I can certainly get that for you.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,I mean,I'm just speaking for myself,not other members of the Board,obviously. They'll
have a chance to comment,but this has got to be one of the worst cases of unapproved development that I
have seen. I mean it's right on the lake. Whatever contractor was involved with this really must have
known that this requires a review and approval.. I think that that's one of the important reasons that we
get the name of whoever was doing this work on record. I'm disappointed that the applicants are not here
to explain why we should approve all these variances for work that was done when they knew, or should
have known,that they had to go through a review and approval process. One of the concerns that we have
sometimes is we worry that people think it's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get approval,particularly
with these types of projects when the requests are excessive. Myself I'm opposed to these variances. I
think that if these variances go through and we approve something that was done probably knowingly
that this should have been reviewed and knowingly this construction was started without review, we're
setting a dangerous practice and precedent for other contractors that want to put construction on the lake,
but again,that's,I guess I'm not happy with this. Let's put it that way.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. MAGOWAN-I stand behind you on this one, Steve. That,really, I was quite amazed. Like I said,
being in the building trades,and I can see an oversight,but I mean we're talking quite a few buildings here.
MR. TRAVER-And probably quite a significant amount of time, right? This wasn't done as a weekend
project.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. It really,we make everybody else go,sometimes even jump through the hoops to
do things correctly and to protect the queen of lakes,not that they're not,but did I hear that there was a
septic that was added?
MR. DANNIBLE-So I guess that would be some of the clarification I'd like to provide the Board. This
application did come and got approval for a new septic system from the Town of Queensbury,and the plan
that was stamped by the Town and by an engineer showed the buildings in the configuration that they
currently are being renovated to. Now I don't know,logistically,how those improvements got an approved
site plan or not,but that is,I think, some of the confusion that exists with the contractor that was doing
the work. He has a stamped site plan that had some of those improvements shown on there.
MRS. MOORE-So I can add some additional context to it. When this project came in front of myself,in
reference to construction of adding building stuff onto this property,I identified that there was an existing
survey and didn't show all this building work at all, and that's where that discussion with both Chris and
Nick of EDP came from,and so we met on site and went through these buildings,not only myself but Craig
Brown and Charlie Dyer, a building inspector. We went through each of those buildings and explained
some of the details to those owners about what was, and their process of getting, if they want to come
back for all this work what they needed to complete, so that at least it could be presented to the Board
what activity has occurred on this site, and,yes, there was a septic variance that was granted,but it was
based on a drawing that an individual did based on what were the site conditions at that time. They didn't
look at the previous survey.
MR. TRAVER-So they might have thought,the applicants might have thought,well if I submit this as the
project and I get it stamped, even if it's only for a septic, and I'm not getting site plan approval, then I've
got my project approved,without having to go through any checks and balances.
MRS. MOORE-I don't know what their thought process was.
MR.TRAVER-Yes,I'm just speculating,actually. I should take that back. Okay. So any other questions?
MRS. MOORE-There's no public comment. I mean,I know that Mrs. Braymer's here,but.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,there's no public hearing. There would conceivably be following.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you representing anybody here?
MR. TRAVER-There's no public comment this evening.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I am representing the neighboring property owners.
MR. DEEB-There's no public comment tonight.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I understand.
MR. TRAVER-There would be public comment at the ZBA,though,right?
MRS. MOORE-That's tomorrow night's meeting.
MR. TRAVER-So tomorrow night at the ZBA there'll be public comment,and in whatever form should it
return to us there will be public comment for site plan.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what recourse do we have? This is huge. This is almost as bad as one tearing off a
front porch and putting on a whole addition on the front of the house because it had a leak.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I can answer your question and Laura can add to it if it would be appropriate,but our
role tonight is to make a recommendation to the ZBA as to whether they should consider granting these
variances. We are not doing a site plan review. Our only role,because the variances are the purview of
the Zoning Board of Appeals, not us. They could conceivably come back, if and when they go for their
variances and come back to us for site plan review, and then if the variances should be approved,then we
would do the regular site,I mean the process is the same that we've done many times before. The difference,
to me, is that it's such an egregious undeveloped, unapproved development case, that I'm opposed to
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
recommending any of the variances. I think that we should,my own wish,would be that this Board would
recommend against approving any of the variances because it is such an egregious violation of the
procedure.
MR. DEE&Well,we could send it to the Zoning Board with exactly what you've said.
MR. TRAVER-Right. That's what I'm suggesting.
MR.MAGOWAN-Or we could deny sending it to the variance board at all,until we have,you know what
concerns me here is we're talking three different really three different buildings,all right. One is the intent
of these renovations. If you're thinking of turning into,let's say, an air b n b, all right,then obviously the
septic. What is the intent of this property,of what you're trying to achieve here?
MR. TRAVER-Well that would really be more in the nature of the site plan review part of the review,we
would review all of that.
MR.MAGOWAN-Don't you think before we waste the ZBA's time and everything else that we really find
out what the.
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. MAGOWAN-This really,really upsets me.
MR. TRAVER-We're not in a position where we can deny the applicant's right to be heard by the ZBA.
Let me defer to,Laura,can you clarify for Mr. Magowan.
MRS.MOORE-So you as a Board traditionally have provided the ZBA with a comment that says just what
you're proposing at this time. I have seen the Board take, at one time, not move the application forward
to the ZBA,giving that direction to the applicant to re-design the project. I think in that case that wasn't
necessarily an after the fact. I think it was an opportunity to that you could re-design the project. In this
case this is after the fact. So I think you can do either one,but I think that your direction to the Zoning
Board would be specific as you've described, so that they understand that you're highly concerned about
this project, and the Zoning Board could take any numerous positions on this activity,but I think they're
in agreement with the idea of after the fact approvals where they're highly concerned about them.
MR. DEER We can send it to the Zoning Board, and we can say we don't recommend any of these. We
could say we recommend that these not be approved.
MR. TRAVER-That would be my preference,but again,I mean we have to agree.
MR. DEEB-I think we have the option to do that,rather than to deny them going to the Zoning Board.
MR. TRAVER-So,yes,we're still in discussion.
MR.MOLLOY-So if we recommend that they don't approve it,and they decide we're not going to approve
it,what happens to the property?
MRS. MOORE-So at the moment it's considered non-compliant.
MR. MOLLOY-Right.
MRS. MOORE-And then they would have to be dealt with a compliance order or some sort of, in effect,
that says they would have to return each of those buildings back to their original state.
MR. TRAVER-So then we would start over,or they would have to start over.
MR. DEEB-They would start over.
MR. TRAVER-So then they would go through the process and we would see what they proposed. Any
remaining variances we would, again, should there be any variances requested as a result of a revision,
should they get a hypothetical denial of these variances from the ZBA,then they would basically start from
scratch.
MRS. MOORE-So they could also amend their application to have less relief being requested or no relief.
I don't know that that would actually occur,but it would be,could be less relief if they do their own.
MR. TRAVER-I don't know how they could get relief from unapproved development. That's something
we haven't worked on yet.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. DEEB-It was surprising when I read it,egregious,I mean.
MR. TRAVER-Well,this is an aside,but one of the things that the Town is going to be going through in
the next 24 months is a review and potential revision of zoning and comprehensive plan, and one of the
things,I believe that I'm going to be part of that process,and one of the things that I'm going to hope that
we can accomplish is addressing the issue of unapproved development in a way that will really discourage
people from seeing that as a potential means to an end. In any case, we digress from tonight. So other
thoughts,comments,regarding a referral to the ZBA? Does anyone support any of these variances?
MR.DIXON-Mr.Chairman,I'll put this out there. Whenever I look at unapproved development,I look at
the plans as if there was nothing there and we're starting from scratch and when I look at what the
applicant's proposing,so let's pretend nothing is on that site right now,when I look at it,I do find two of
the variances that I would forward, and that's for 9 Nutley and the other is 13. Seven I'm looking at as
potentially a request for a new building, how it's presented here, and I'm not in favor of new building on
that small parcel.
MR. TRAVER-My own feeling, and I appreciate what you're saying. When I looked at the variances, I
thought about whether or not,I looked at them individually,and I thought about the reasonableness of the
various variances and were it not,I mean potentially were it not for the fact that this was such an egregious
unapproved development method that they chose,and it wasn't,in my opinion,a choice. I might have been
prepared to consider,possibly, some of those variances,but my concern is that we,if this successful, and
they have these buildings and whatever their use for them might be, and we'll find out that at some point
later on, should this project go forward, you know, we're enabling a process in the Town that I think is
extremely harmful. I mean there's a lot of,I mean we're not even talking about the environmental impact
and all the rest of it,but I just think,it seems to me that we have almost a responsibility to advocate against
any form of unapproved development,and this is,I mean we've had a number of unapproved development.
It's been a problem in the Town for a while, but generally there are, certainly never been anything as
egregious as this in terms of the extent and the amount of time that it was under construction and the
various methods that they used to submit plans and soon. So, again,it's just my personal opinion.
MR. DEEB-Let's not beat a dead horse.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well I want to make sure, does anyone have any opinions about a referral? I'm
suggesting that we basically just say the severity of the unapproved development is such and the.
MR. DEEB-We can say the Planning Board recommends that none of these variances be granted.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's right. That's the bottom line.
MR. MAGOWAN-I second it.
MR.TRAVER-Does anyone else have anything that they would like to add to the referral? Does everybody
feel that that's a reasonable referral? Okay.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,I will,based on the comment that I had said,I'd back it up a little bit and say,
although that was my approach,everything's being presented as a package,address 7,9 and 13,representing
it as one package, so I guess I would not be in favor. Of course I'm letting the cat out of the bag already.
Ready?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#21-2022 RED'S LG,LLC
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: The applicant proposes to complete
alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of third dwelling unit on
the site.Site work had started on all three buildings prior to review.Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new
building of 540 sq. ft. of one bedroom and kitchen, 2SS sq. ft. open porch, 24 sq. ft. covered entry area;
Alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,40E sq.
ft.,new open deck of 440 sq.ft.-walkout area below,interior alterations for 13 Nutley Lane existing floor
area 2,134 with four bedrooms. Project includes grass depression areas, shoreline plantings, construction
of a retaining wall of 72 ft. in length at I.S ft. in height. Project subject to site plan for new floor area for 7
Nutley Lane,expansion of non-conforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the
shoreline; Project subject to area variance for setbacks for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane, expansion of non-
conforming,stormwater devices less than 100 ft.from the shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit-kitchen,
and permeability.Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,shall be subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for expansion of nonconforming, adding third dwelling unit,
setbacks and stormwater device setback. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals
2S
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning
Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC., Introduced by
Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and
b) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern:
1) Planning Board recommends none of the variances be approved.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA.
MR. DANNIBLE-Thank you.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you.
MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item we have under New
Business is Tidal Wave Auto Spa, Site Plan 65-2021.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA. AGENT(S):
EMC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. OWNER(S): TWAS QUAKER ROAD LLC ZONING:
CI. LOCATION: 708 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO AN
EXISTING 6,815 SQ.FT.CAR WASH BUILDING WITH A NEW FACADE AND COLOR SCHEME.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE IMPROVEMENTS, NEW PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
ARRANGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF ANEW 9950 SQ.FT. VACUUM
OPEN CANOPY. THERE IS TO BE NEW SIGNS, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. THE EXISTING SELF-CAR WASH BUILDING OF 3,114 SQ.FT.IS TO REMAIN.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 37-2015,SP 51-2015 CAR WASH, SV 1-
2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: MUNICIPAL SEWER
CONNECTION. LOT SIZE: 3.83 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-
9-120.
STEPHANIE BITTER&MARTIE MURPHY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes renovations to an existing 6,SI5 carwash building with a new
facade and color scheme. The project includes site improvements, new parking and driveway
arrangement. The project includes construction of a new 9,950 square foot vacuum canopy. There is to
be new signage, landscaping and stormwater management. As I noted, in reference to signage, I believe
there'll be a sign variance at a later time. So none of the signs as part of the proposal you see in front of you
should be part of your approval. So other than that it's updating this particular project site with,
upgrading the carwash building and then adding a new canopy. I will give you a bit of an update. What
had happened was that there was a sewer line that was severed. The applicant had to come back to the
Town Board to produce a map plan and report that has been done and my understanding is that's been
approved and they can move forward with that detail. You don't have to be involved with that. The
Planning Board can move forward with the review of the carwash.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MRS.BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter here with the applicant Marty Murphy and John Cele from
Tidal Wave. As Laura described we are here for a face lift. This property is on 70S Quaker Road but it's
between Quaker and Dix Avenue. This has been a long time coming. These folks purchased this property
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
in 2021,had a couple of bumps in the road,realized at the time of their purchase that they were actually
connected to Glens Falls wastewater and we've had to transfer over to Queensbury and get added to the
district which is why Laura was describing that we just were before the Town Board for the map plan and
report which is in motion. We are in the process of getting the County permits which gives us the
opportunity to now be here because as you may have noticed from our application it's dated August. So
with that they are maintaining the existing buildings,which are the drive thru carwash as well as the self-
service carwash. Our main purpose it to add anew building which will be a canopy for a vacuum which'll
be approximately 9,000 square feet in size. With that they're also improving the site with obviously facade
changes,landscaping,paving, new striping as well as upgrading the stormwater and signage. With that
we are trying to finalize and get to the finish line with you folks to amend the site plan in doing so. So I
would open it up to any questions you folks have. Obviously the applicants are here to answer any of
those.
MR. TRAVER-Well we're certainly glad you're here. One of the interesting things that's happened over
the last few months is the absence of this carwash has been keenly felt in the Town. We've had discussions
with another applicant and that was one of the things that was noted was that the demand spiked because
of the absence of this facility. So that's.
MRS.BITTER-Good for business.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's interesting. So,yes, it looks fairly straightforward. It's certainly going to be
an improvement I believe to the project,but I'll open it up to questions from other members of the Planning
Board.
MR. DEEB-I really like the presentation of the building.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-It looks nice.
MR. TRAVER-The landscaping is nice,too.
MR.DEEB-I was,we just voted,obviously,and you were here when the vote happened,consideration was
given that you are now going to be open,you're hopefully going to be open,which weighed on my vote,but
I just like the presentation,and I also noticed that one of your applicants,best carwash in the United States
or?
MR. MURPHY-In the United States.
MR. DEEB-In the United States.
MR. MURPHY-I'm sure Mr. Hoffman runs a pretty close second.
MR. DEEB-That's a pretty bold statement. I have to say that. The other thing,and I don't think this has
anything to do with you, is Barrett Lane. That road is horrendous. It was horrendous. I haven't been
down it in a while.
MR. MAGOWAN-They've changed the name,Dave.
MR. DEEB-I know it's not on your property,but that road does need,who owns that road?
MR. MAGOWAN-Barretts.
MR. DEEB-The Barretts themselves? All right. Never mind. I'll withdraw the question.
MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,there were some engineering comments.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DIXON-Have you had a chance to look at those? Do you want to comment on those?
MR. Yes, sir. We received those comments approximately a week ago. We've revised those and re-
submitted that back in and submit them to the engineer. So we have already revised those comments.
MR. TRAVER-And they appear to be largely technical adjustments to your.
MR. MURPHY-That's correct. There's notes that need to be added or some slight modifications, but
again,it was a very simple request,the comments that were given,and we were able to address those very
quickly and get those back in already,within just a few days.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. DIXON-For the most part for your project,how I was looking at it,there's really not a lot of changes
taking place other than probably cosmetics. So even the engineering report, it's pretty detailed, even
though we're not having a huge adjustment on the property.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. DIXON-So I was quite comfortable. I do have one more question. So is that your business that's in
South Glens Falls as well?
MR. MURPHY-Yes,sir,that is correct.
MR. DEEB-Is that almost ready to open?
MR. MURPHY-No,sir. We were looking at mid June hopefully we'll be ready for opening.
MR. DEEB-Did you re-vamp the tunnel,did you put all new equipment in?
MR.MURPHY-Yes,sir,that is correct. Took every bit of the equipment out and put all new equipment in
in South Winds,and that's what our anticipation is here as well.
MR. DEEB-Good.
MR. MAGOWAN-You added on to the front,too.
MR. MURPHY- South Winds we did,yes,sir. We added to the front,entrance and exit in South Winds.
MR. DEEB-And I'm glad you're re-vamping it because I got stuck in somebody else's car wash the other
day. I don't know what happened but I sat therefor a few minutes,but it is good to see everything being
modernized and now you're going to have South Glens Falls. Mr. Hoffman's going to have two. So we
should have plenty of car washes that will hopefully divide business up for everybody and not cause
problems.
MR. TRAVER-There's also a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that
wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, are there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I have a written comment. This is addressed to the Chairman and the Board members.
"My name is Dan Graves. I am the shop manager of Garvey Auto Body located at 714 Quaker Road,
Queensbury,NY 12SO4. On behalf of owners Sean and John Peter Garvey,we would like to urge the Board
to fully support the application of Tidal Wave Auto Spa for the renovations and improvements to the
property located at 70S Quaker Road, Queensbury,NY 12SO4. We welcome them as neighbors and look
forward to their Grand Opening in the near future. Sincerely, Dan Graves"
MR. TRAVER-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-That is all.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. DIXON-May I ask one more question? Just out of curiosity, as we talk car washes, do you do any
recycling of the water? Or is it going to go into the sewer system?
MR. MURPHY-So this is an unusual one. This one does not, we will actually set up a recycling system
internally,and we will recycle the water. The owner of the company,Scott Blackstock, is also an engineer
from Georgia Tech and he's come up with a system the way that our trench will be re-designed and we can
pull the water off the top of the trench and incorporate it back into our wash. On our new builds we have
we recycle a large amount of our water and re-use that through the wash process which will be
implemented here as well.
MR. DIXON-And that was just really out of curiosity more than anything.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. DEEB-That accent,what State are you from?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR. MURPHY-South Georgia.
MR. TRAVER-We do have,this is an Unlisted SEQR. So we do have a SEQR review that we must look
at. Does anyone have environmental concerns with regards to this update to the car wash?
MR. DEEB-No.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a SEQR resolution in our packets.
RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#65-2021 TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA
The applicant proposes renovations to an existing 61S15 sq. ft. car wash building with a new facade and
color scheme. The project includes site improvements, new parking and driveway arrangement. Project
includes construction of a new 9,950 sq. ft. vacuum open canopy. There is to be new signs,landscaping,
and stormwater management. The existing self-car wash building of 3,114 sq. ft.is to remain. Pursuant to
Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance,modifications to an approved site plan shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short/Long EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the
environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this
negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 68-2021 TIDAL WAVE
AUTO SPA.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption.
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board.
2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially
moderate to large impacts.
Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Do members of the Board feel comfortable going forward with the Site Plan resolution?
Okay. I guess we're ready to hear that as well.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#65-2021 TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA
The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes renovations to an
existing 6,SI5 sq. ft. car wash building with a new facade and color scheme. The project includes site
improvements,new parking and driveway arrangement. Project includes construction of a new 9,950 sq.
ft.vacuum open canopy. There is to be new signs,landscaping,and stormwater management.The existing
self-car wash building of 3,114 sq. ft. is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the
Zoning Ordinance,modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and
approval.
Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren
County Planning Department for its recommendation;
The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration
Determination of Non-Significance;
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/26/2022 and continued the
public hearing to 5/26/2022,when it was closed,
The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments
made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 5/26/2022;
The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and
standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval,
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 68-2021 TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA; Introduced by Michael
Dixon who moved for its adoption.
According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following:
1) Waivers requested granted: signage as waivers requested are reasonable to request for this item
noting the signage is to be developed at a later time;
2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for
requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired.
3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff,
b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater
Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection;
c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not
be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of
Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor
plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site
improvements;-
f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning
Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved;
ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required.
g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel;
h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans
Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 17`h day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-You're all set.
MR. MAGOWAN-One question,if I you don't mind. Since we've got the two big car wash kahunas here,
I'm just amazed,because I happen to have worked in a Smart Wash in the wiring end of it,and I was just
totally amazed at the miles and miles of just electrical wires, along with the miles and miles of hoses and
totes,but it's just a huge business. They do a great job. You're claiming to be Number One. So this is
going to be great. Thank you for staying,but I'm just amazed. What are the big differences?
The big differences between?
MR. MAGOWAN-The washing,you know.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
MR.MURPHY-So I think Mr.Hoffman,I'm not sure,but you're going to be a flex serve. So an express car
wash is simply what it says,you pull in,you pay at the HPT. You pull through the HPT,you get loaded
on the correlator, the conveyor. We do prepping. We do prepping before you actually go through the
tunnel. So then when you're operator at that location, you proceed forwarded through the tunnel.
Approximately a minute later,you exit in the tunnel,the car is washed, dried. We offer graphene,which
is the newest,latest and greatest coating that goes on cars. Previously you had the big marketing of hot
wax. Then it went to ceramics. Now it's gone to graphene and so it's applied, I think we apply three
coats of graphene. It's the top of the line wash we have. We have tire shine. We have the driers at the
end of the tunnel that dries your car, and we've also added what we call a buffing wheel that buffs the top
portion of your car. The main difference is we put a lot of emphases on site leaders in that they maintain
their car wash as Chik Fil A maintains their restaurants. We want to be the nicest, no offense to Mr.
Hoffman,but we want to have the nicest looking car wash in town. Not just the car wash,but the nicest
business in town. We would like for this Town to say,hey,if you look at what Tidal Wave did,we certainly
would support you here, and then cleanliness of the site. We would accept anything but topnotch
customer service. We've got 24 cameras approximately at every location. Those cameras are for two
reasons. For your safety and for ours. An additional benefit is that we can monitor our site employees. If
they're not greeting you with a smile, if they're shirts are not tucked in, they're not appropriately doing
what they should be doing,that we've trained them to do,then they'll be reprimanded or relieved of their
duties at that site and then the last thing is that we can monitor the safety of you, say if there's an
opportunity,you came in and you said we damaged your car. We can clearly see if we did or we didn't
because of our camera locations. So in all that,we feel like we do set the tone with being the best car wash
in the industry,and as long as Mr.Blackstock's involved personally we'll stay at that level,because there's
never a good enough good enough for Scott. He's going to demand us to be the best. He's a Georgia Tech
grad. He's an engineer. By trade he's a chemical engineer so the car wash industry played right into what
he knew, chemicals. So the chemical makeup,the way we do it,is second to none. That's what we feel
like,we know that it makes us one of the best in the industry if not the best
MR. DEEB-Are you privately owned?
MR. MURPHY-We are not privately owned as of December 2020. So we are a private equity group. Mr.
Blackstock remains as the, I would say the principle owner and the CEO of the company, very much
involved. He and his wife started this company in 2004.
MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you very much for your time.
MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening?
MR. DIXON-I'd like to make a recommendation. Could we move Unapproved development to the last
agenda item?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can suggest that to Staff. The only reason that this was not changed was it was
originally not on the agenda as Unapproved Development.
MR. DIXON-I remember that. I was recommending that we move Unapproved items to the last items on
the agenda because we've got people that are following the rules and we've got them waiting until the very
end.
MRS. MOORE-Certainly we can do that. We've tried to put recommendations together so that people
understand they're recommendations.
MR. TRAVER-Maybe put it the last recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-So this was the last recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Yes,it was.
MR. DIXON-Laura,if that creates too much work on the Town,it's not a critical item.
MR. TRAVER-Don't give them that excuse.
MRS. MOORE-It was more interesting to hear them last then to hear us complain about something that
they should have known better.
MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not,we'll entertain
a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 17TrH 2022,
Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan:
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 05/17/2022)
Duly adopted this 17`h day of May,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Stephen Traver,Chairman
35